Evidences for a god?

It has become obvious that the ongoing debate over religion has little or nothing to do with religion. The dispute has degraded into citing references that may or may not be relevant to the issues at hand. Here is a list of some of the irrelevant issues:

1: The mental status of the debater.

Sanity has certainly never been a prerequisite for religion. The same rules should hold for atheism. Any Sunday morning with a TV set can confirm this.

2: Was Hitler a Christian or an atheist?

Christians claim Hitler was an atheist. Hitler was raised a Catholic and claimed to always be religious. But that issue is a moot point in whether a god exists or not.

3: Stalin, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Min are reported to be atheists.

I believe they were... So what? Is their position of any more significance than Hitler's?

4: How many and which scientists are religious and how many and which ones are atheists?

I believe this issue weighs highly in favor of the atheists, but again, it's simply a straw-man type argument.

5: Obsession with cause.

Who determines who's obsessed and who's merely concerned with a cause? The most important scientific discoveries were made by those obsessed with the quest for an answer. Those who created religions were probably no less obsessed than the scientists who made earth shaking discoveries. Obsession is not an undesirable quality or a handicap.

6: Simple slogans.

'In God we trust' on money and 'Under God in the pledge'. Is this meaningful evidence that a god exists? I'm sure every deity had a slogan. It only proves that man has a vivid imagination.7: Slogans on public buildings.

This would only reflect the opinion of the architect and those approving the funds to construct. The pyramids had a lot of recorded information....Oops, the wrong gods!

8: The majority wins!

Wins what? True the majority of Americans (78%) are stated Christians, but world wide only 1/3 of the population is Christian nation and of those only less than 80% are really Christian......80% of 33% is only 27%, hardly a majority.....In England, France and Germany, the percentage is much less.

I'm sure there are many more irrelevant issues to cloud the real issue, that being the question of whether a god exists or not. 'IF' there is a god, there should be evidence to support it. If there is no evidence, then it should be questioned as superstition, mythology or a good scam, for money and power. As an atheist, I'm frequently asked to 'prove' that God doesn't exist. One cannot logically disprove the non existence of anything. We cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, although I have no reason to believe they do. The same logic applies to not only your god, but all the other gods as well.

In my 73 years on this planet, I have yet to see one convincing bit of evidence that there is a god. But unlike the devout believers, I'm always open to any new evidence, should it become available. I might look good with a cross around my neck. But then, I really doubt much could save either my long lost looks or my theism.

Excellent post, but I feel I must point out one problem. To argue that many scientists are atheists, therefore the atheist position is correct is not a straw-man argument, it is an argument from authority. Like you, I'll grant that it's persuaive, but technically an illogical argument. If nothing else, the fact that a large number of experts agree on something does tend to make you sit up and take notice, but it should never be used as the argument of the truth of a position.

Excellent post. Each and every debate that I have ever engaged in with Christians, and each and every debate that any atheist I know has engaged in with Christians, over the existence of God, always revolves around these few irrelevant issues. From now on, after making the Christian look like the fool he/she/it is, I will endeavor to point out that these issues are irrelevent to the existence of God. Thanks, Bob P!

P.S. I'm not sure the comment about scientists being atheists working out in favor of the atheists is a statement of argument from authority. Scientists have been responsible for progress in this world - for the advent of medicine, peace and prosperity. The religious, meanwhile, have done little or nothing. So it works out in our favor that those making progress in the world are like us - heathens. Thanks again!

Trancelation refers to "scientists" and "the religious" as two distinct groups, but of course there are many religious scientists (see e.g. "Christians in Science" in the UK and "The American Scientific Affiliation" in the US).

It is also incorrect to imply that only "heathens" have made progress in the world (there is a long list of non-heathen progress-makers, e.g. from Isaac Newton through to Francis Collins today).

1. I never implied that only "heathens" have made progress in the world. I said that the religious have made little or no progress. There is a difference here, Bill. Just thought I'd point that out to you.

2. One cannot be scientific AND religious at the same time. The two contradict each other. To be such is oxymoronic. Science has no place with religion, and religion no place with science. Faith, and thus religion, relies on the non-existence of evidence and belief DESPITE that non-existence of evidence and DESPITE the evidence against it, while science relies on the existence of evidence and the consideration of said evidence to reach a conclusion. Religion is the blind adherence to a set of dogmas and doctrine.

Let me say it another way:

Science: this is the evidence. What is the conclusion?

Religion: this is the conclusion. What is the evidence?

These are two very different processes, Bill. Just thought I'd point that out to you.

The very nature of religion is to confine the ways that we are allowed to see the world - doing so, scientifically, would not be science. And while we're here, Bill, please do not suggest that scientists need religious (AKA Christian) morals to guide them. Science is not about morality. And neither, it happens, is Christianity. As I have already stated, Christianity is establishing a conclusion and then seeking evidence for it. That is not scientific, Bill. Just thought I'd point that out for you.

3. Following the points I made above, listing two people and two groups does not amount to the "scientifically religious" (to use your apparent oxymoron) or the "religiously scientific" making more progress than the "heathens". As I said, LITTLE or NO progress.

4. Newton was, in every sense of the word, a heretic. As an opponent of the decisions reached at the Council of Nicaea (where Newton says that Christianity 'lost its way'), and a strong critic of Trinitarian dogma and doctrine, Newton displayed characteristics of a Deist more than a Christian, though his views adhered minorly to the Bible and majorly to the Creation account (no surprise, since it would have been the only worldview afforded him at the time). You don't hear any other pre-Victorian personalities discussing Hinduism or Buddhism, now, do you? How ironic.

I'd also like to point out that christianity was the prevailing worldview in Newton's time. It is no wonder, then, that Newton, like MOST people of his time, should be Christian. It is hardly fair to make the case that Newton could have been religious when there was so little speaking against Christianity. Enlightened though he was, Newton lived in a dark age.

Christians, conveniently, are willing to bend Newton's interpretations to meet their own needs in an argument about the existence of God. Again, how ironic.

Sorry, Bill, but I have a hard accepting that Newton was religious, when he spent so much time writing about the flaws of one in particular.

5. Francis Collins is not far behind Newton. Indeed, it is better to say that he is much worse. Collins, noted genticist though he may be, is perfectly willing to bend the rules, and thusly perfectly willing to bend religion. His views are EXTREMELY liberal, and the ways in whch he is willing to completely re-write the Bible in favor of his . . . BioLogosical view make even my jaw drop, and I've heard the BS from every money-swindling preacher of our times. You read about them everyday hear on ex-Christian, or at Positive Atheism. While Collins is no doubt a very spiritual man, his cut-and-pasting of Scripture and his willinness to bypass doctrine in order to wrap a lame Christianity (or should I say simple Christianity) around his own liberal, Deistic views is hardly religious. If anything, Collins comes down to three possibilities. He is either an ass-kisser, a money-swindler, or a mean searching for meaning. But religious? I think not.

6. neither of the organizations you have mentioned list members in the scientific community. My arguments above notwithstanding, it is difficult for me to accept that there are scientists in religious organizations when no credentials or names are mentioned.

7. Now I'm not going to play at being a nice little boy anymore. Take your apologetic little ass and go fuck yourself. No one here is interested in your lame, half-assed attempts at logic. Have a nice day. Or not.

trancelation said: It is no wonder, then, that Newton, like MOST people of his time, should be Christian. It is hardly fair to make the case that Newton could have been religious when there was so little speaking against Christianity-----Trancelation,

I couldn't agree more with your post!!

It does so blow the mind when xtians believe that it should/could have been 'as' easy to dismiss 'god' in previous era's, as it is today.

That's not to say it couldn't happen, but one would have had to work HARD at gathering up the resources necessary, at such a quest to find the truth that this xtian god was....NOT.It's not like one could drive down to their library or jump on the internet to figure things out.I would also think that science minded folks would have been too busy, well, doing science to spend a great deal of time back then chasing after the god question.

So now here's the real question about today's atheist scientists.Did the things they learn via their education and research, make them atheist -OR- did they become scientist because their nature to do so, also is the same nature that dismisses such superstitious beliefs. Personally, I think it's a mixture of both.

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be), in Newton's time and for a long time afterward, you couldn't be a don at a big name English university unless you said you were into Xtianity. So, it was a promise that was extracted by coercion, and as such, worthless. Indeed, I have it in mind that the dons at the universities qualified as some sort of low-rent clergymen themselves, on the principle that smart plus (nominally) religious, divided by two, equals clergyman.

Thank you, ATF and ell shepherd, for elaborating. I'm glad my incessant rambling made sense somewhere. I'm waiting to see what Bill F. has to say, but I'm not counting on any sort of reply. Not after Point #7. But that was the point, eh? :P

1. Your original phrase "...those making progress in the world are like us - heathens" is unqualified and therefore does imply that it is only 'heathens' that are making progress. Did you mean "Most of those making progress in the world...." or "Almost all of those making progress in the world..."?

2. My proposition (and that of the Opening Post - point 4) is that there are religious scientists. (Incidentally, I agree with Bob P's point that the numbers or percentages of religious/atheist scientists are irrelevant). Your proposition is that "one cannot be scientific AND religious at the same time". There is a difference here, Trancelation. Just thought I'd point that out to you. I'll return to your proposition below, but let's look at mine first.

'Religious' is defined as "Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity" - The Free Dictionary. I take it we agree that Newton and Collins were/are scientists. Were/are they also 'religious'?

To quote Isaac Newton (from 'The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy': "...much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants". Clearly, a belief in and a reverence for God, therefore 'religious'.

Francis Collins (at http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/coll-body.html): "I think for those people who are religious, who have a serious faith in a personal God, and I count myself in those ranks..." Once again, a clear statement that he is 'religious'.

That's all I was saying - no need to digress into a discussion of what branch of faith they belonged to, liberal, non-liberal, etc, etc.

I only picked those names at random, from opposite ends of a long list of religious scientists also including Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday and - in more modern times when there certainly were other worldviews - Lord Kelvin, Max Planck ("To the believer, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations" - Religion and Naturwissenschaft), and Arthur Eddington, to mention a few more.

As you will know, there have been various surveys of the percentages of scientists who are religious. One of the more recent was the 2005-07 study, "Religion Among Academic Scientists" (RAAS), conducted by Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University at Buffalo and principal investigator. I am very happy to agree that religious scientists were in the minority, but the point is that Ecklund recognises that such persons do exist. Quotes (from http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732): "Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," and "The assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable."

Do you deny that there are any Moslem, orthodox Jewish, etc etc scientists who are 'religious'?

Now, returning to your proposition, I may actually agree with you that one cannot be scientific and religious at the same time, in the sense that science and religion may not be able to address or resolve the same issues.

Francis Collins also appears to take this view: "I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world—the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986-1,00.html).

3. I didn't refer to anyone "making more progress than the heathens", just that it wasn't only they who had made progress. There is a difference here, Trancelation. Just thought I'd point that out for you. See above re other comments.

4. "...it would have been the only worldview afforded him at the time". Er, no - atheism and other philosophies did exist in the 17th century. Boyle (mentioned above) was a contemporary of Newton, and "...one of the numerous codicils to Boyle's will, enacted after his death on 31 December 1691, provided for the setting up of a series of lectures for the defence of the Christian religion against atheists and others, the so-called Boyle Lectures. The first series of these was delivered by the scholar and divine, Richard Bentley, in 1692" (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/biog.html).

See (2) above re other comments about Newton.

5. See (2) above.

6. Christians in Science states "Among our 650+ members are scientists engaged in research & development, science lecturers, teachers, administrators in university, school or industry, science writers, philosophers, theologians and others who have an interest in the relationship between science and Christian faith. Members include highly distinguished senior scientists." The American Scientific Affiliation states "The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women of science and disciplines that can relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. ASA was founded in 1941 and has grown significantly since that time." I'm sure both associations would tell more about their members to anyone who asked.

These organisations were only two names I saw at the top of a quick Google list - there are others, and I think it would be untenable to argue that every single member of every such association is either 'not a real scientist' or 'not religious'.

7. You appear not to share the Webmaster's intentions: "...all people are welcome to join the discussions and post their ideas, thoughts, or even well thought out arguments." I respect the position taken by Ex-Christians, and unlike some lazy, rude and inconsiderate Christian posters I've read the Purpose and Posting Guidelines and the testimonies, so I understand where you're coming from. I don't come here often, but when I do it's just to read some interesting discussions - not to preach, or spout "angry Christian rhetoric" (in Webmaster's words!), or make crass and insulting comments like those I've seen on here before, to the effect that someone has never read the bible properly or prayed sincerely, etc, etc. But REALLY!!! Can't we discuss whether there is such a thing as a religious scientist in a civil manner??!! (And in case there's any doubt, my requotes of your "There is a difference here" comments are tongue-in-cheek!)

There are a lot people in the world who could be labeled as scientists. And, no doubt, many believe that there is some sort of god. There may even be some that call themselves Christian. And finally, you might actually find a real live scientist who is a fundamentalist, evangelical, witnessing fool for Christ! (That last one seems a bit of a stretch, but who knows?)

Regardless of the obvious, who cares? Just because a "scientist" believes in god, does that make the evidence for a god stronger? How about a pastor who no longer believes in any gods? Does that mean there is no god?

Any argument from authority is a weak argument. And, lumping all scientists who admit to some sort of religious faith together is ridiculous. There are quite a few Muslim scientists on the planet, for example. It would probably be a safe guess that only a fraction of religious scientists would be generally considered "True Christians™" by the "True Christians™."

Keep in mind here, I am a militant atheist, and no one is more disgusting to me that liberal Christians and wishy-washy apologeticians such as yourself. You will get no respect from me, other than that I will not hurt or kill you based on the fact that you are a human being.

One thing I know about Christians and the religious in general, is that they will criticize the atheist no matter what stance they take. If the atheist is genteel, socially appropriate, and makes intelligent points, the Christian and/or the religious will say the atheist is a robot, a machine, with no emotions. If the atheist is fiery, passionate, strong, the Christian and/or the religious will say the atheist is full of hate, spite and anger. This is why I've combined both in my approach. I will smile warmly at you and then spit in your face. If you have a problem with this, you can do one of two things:

You can guess what those are.

I make no apologies. This is not a debate over tea. Religion and all who practice it , and all who defend it, are a disease. Like any disease, its single goal is to spread and crush any host that it can. I liken the religious to the Flood species of Halo, blindly gobbling up all life. But I will respond to everything you say.

1. You're arguing semantics here, because we disagree on the meaning of 'religious'.

Religious: any person with unfaltering, psychosis-based belief in nouns (persons, places or things) for which there is no evidence, contrary to that lack of evidence or evidence against that belief, based upon a theistic system of absolutes.

As well:

Heathen: any persons of atheistic nature, that is, possessing atheistic views, or any persons possessing spiritual views, that is, views that are agnostic in nature and appearance, (see HERETIC or HEREITCAL) loosely tied to religious views, but which are often conscripted for the individual's own agenda.

That's the way I see it. Spirituality can also encompass, or claim to encompass, certain aspects of Christianity. The way I see it, since Christianity offers nothing unique in the way of ideas, claiming to have Christian aspects in one's spiritualism is ass-kissing. Getting a salad at the pizza buffet because your girlfriend will frown at you if you don't.

I have already made my cases concerning Newton and Collins, and the same can be said of any other scientist: if they bend the rules of the system, they are heretics at best, spiritualist at worst. But not religious.

2. The American Psychological Association once defined homosexuality as a disease. It no loner does. I, for one, do not give a damn if a dicitionary lists a certain definition for 'religious'. Our ideas are constantly in flux, and I, for one, define 'religious' and 'spiritual' differently, as do many, many people. Do we agree that Newton and Collins were/are scientists? Sure. Do we agree that they were/are religious? To put it bluntly: fuck, no.

It's hardly fair to think of Newton as religious when he lived in a time when 99% of folks were "religious". By my definition of religion, one must have evidence to the contrary - without that, it's not religion. It's just the Way Things Are.

It seems to me, Bill, that you are confusing RELIGIOUS with SPIRITUAL.

3. I maintain that the religious do not make progress in the world. Science and religion are at odds, and science is not a religion. I have yet to hear of any religion that makes room for science, especially when it comes to science discovering that said religion is wrong.

4. I maintain that Christianity would have been the only worldview afforded Newton at his time. As another poster pointed out, listing oneself as Christian was/is a great way to move up in the world. Atheists then, as now, were ostricized and outcasts; not good for a scientists seeking grants. And besides, I have already stated my case that Newton was a heretic, a spiritualist, but certainly not a Christian. Maybe a liberal Christian. But not religious.

5. If you say so.

6. I really don't care.

7. Bill, to be honest, no, I do not share the webmaster's views. I have no intention of engaging in debate with what are essentially mentally ill human beings. Christianity, and religious belief in general, is a form of delusion, of mental disorder. Such disorders vary in severity, but I have found that all religious people will eventually respond the same way to disagreement: they will run and hide.

You, however, confuse me, as I'm not quite sure of your position. Are you a Christian? A spiritualist claiming Christian influence? A Deist? I will have to suspend my brutality until such time as I can make sense of you.

Sorry I wasn't more specific. The webmaster here is more willing to engage Christians in an open manner, it seems to me. I differ from the webmaster's views in that I am a far more aggressive atheist, hence militant. I suppose this is my nature: I have always been an aggressive person, as it seems to be the only way for me to get anything done. This is not to say I can't be patient or genteel. Indeed, most of my coworkers will say that I am the most patient and understanding person they have ever met.

But when it comes to dealing with religion and politics on an everyday basis, outside of work, I am a monster. The webmaster, from what I have seen, is not like this. The webmaster is certainly more schooled in Christian history than I am. I will go so far as to say that my jaw drops freely when he discloses his knowledge on the history of Christianity. I do not disrespect the webmaster for his way of dealing with Christians. It just doesn't work for me. I feel that Christians need to know that there are atheists out there that aren't afraid to fight. That's not to say that the webmaster does not fight - he does so in his own way. I prefer to let Christians know from the get-go, I'm not putting up with their shit, and if they cross me they will have their hands full.

"You will get no respect from me". Well, I'm not an atheist, Muslim, Hindu or Jew, but I have family, friends and colleagues who are, and I treat them all with respect and wouldn't dream of treating any of them any differently to anyone who happens to share my beliefs.

"I will not hurt or kill you". Gosh, thanks - should I feel grateful?

"One thing I know about Christians and the religious in general". I think this is part of your problem - do you consider all German people bad because Hitler was bad?

"I will respond to everything you say." You haven't, actually, as I point out below.

1. & 2. Well, I suppose you can make a case for anything if you invent your own definitions and ignore generally accepted definitions.

Anyone else on here think that a person who says "we admire [God] for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants" or who has "a serious faith in a personal God" is not 'religious'? (I see Webmaster used the expression 'religious scientists' in his post immediately before your reply to me. He also acknowledges that there are Muslim scientists, which I note you declined to answer from my post.)

It may well be, as Webmaster states, that only a fraction of scientists are religious. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the vast majority are atheists, because I also agree with Webmaster and Bob P that it makes no difference. So why would it bother you that there is a small fraction of religious scientists - is it because you think that it in some way dilutes an argument from authority, or perhaps because it just shows that your definitions are incorrect?

"You're arguing semantics here". Not at all. Richard Dawkins, for example, also acknowledges that there are SOME "genuinely religious scientists" - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yENWf5ThIg4. His explanation for this is that they compartmentalise their mind. This sounds very much like my interpretation of your statement that you can't be scientific and religious at the same time (i.e. science and religion don't address the same issues, but you can be a scientist who happens to be religious. A bit like "Render to God the things that are God's, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" - let science deal with the things that science can answer and let religion deal with the things that religion can answer). Not semantics - two different things.

You didn't comment on the survey I mentioned - do you accept or reject the findings of an impartial survey that "The assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable."?

2. "It's hardly fair to think of Newton as religious when he lived in a time when 99% of folks were "religious". Eh??? So it wouldn't be 'fair' to think of someone as an atheist if he lived in a time when 99% of folks were atheists? What on earth do you mean?

"Certainly not a Christian. Maybe a liberal Christian." You sound confused.

3. "I maintain that the religious do not make progress in the world." Oh dear, you are just giving the impression that you ignore any evidence that does not fit your case. Not a very scientific approach, I must say. Just two or three examples - Wilberforce was a religious anti-slavery activist. Do you consider that the abolition of slavery was not progress? Dr Barnardo was a religious person who established schools and homes for destitute children. Today, Barnardos is a worldwide organisation with the vision that "the lives of all children and young people should be free from poverty, abuse and discrimination". Do you consider that this is not progress? Martin Luther King was a religious civil rights campaigner - do you consider that the establishment and upholding of civil rights is not progress?

"I have yet to hear of any religion that makes room for science". Depends what you choose to listen to.

4. "listing oneself as Christian was/is a great way to move up in the world" I didn't disagree that it wouldn't have hindered Newton's acceptance in his time to be religious rather than an atheist. What I would disagree with is any argument that he adopted his beliefs in order to further his advancement. I don't believe there is any evidence for that, and if anything, I would say that the evidence points the other way - i.e. that religious beliefs are constant, people adopt them irrespective and indeed inspite of the prevailing attitude at the time, and it is the attitude of society, the state and institutions towards the religious that changes. For example, 100 years before Newton, hundreds of people were burned at the stake for beliefs that were considered quite acceptable 100 years later. Did they not adopt, or did they recant, their beliefs in order to become more popular or less unpopular? No.

"I maintain that Christianity would have been the only worldview afforded Newton at his time". Once again, you ignore evidence - I pointed out that one of Newton's contemporaries made provision for religion to be defended against atheists and others.

6. "I really don't care." That would explain quite a lot.

7. Forgive me for asking, but as I am not a regular visitor, I'm not familiar with members/posters - are you an Ex-christian? If not, I guess that explains why you don't share all Webmaster's views or respect the site guidelines, and it would mean that you and I are both guests on here, so it would perhaps be better to let Webmaster/Ex-christians decide which visitors to ask to go fuck themselves. Apologies if you are an Ex-christian, in which case ignore the question/comment.

"I have found that all religious people will eventually respond the same way to disagreement: they will run and hide." Again, another incorrect generalisation. I have no reason or wish to run and hide - in fact I've quite enjoyed our discussion.

"Are you a Christian? A spiritualist claiming Christian influence? A Deist? I will have to suspend my brutality until such time as I can make sense of you." You seem to have a strange outlook on life if you need to find out a person's beliefs before you can decide how to engage with them as a human being. I admit you would have a point if I only saw you as a potential target or convert, and continually Bible-bashed or Koran-bashed or Talmud-bashed you. But I don't do that to anyone - the fact that you need to ask proves it - and I just see you as a human being that I'm having an interesting conversation with on a particular point. So, if it will result in a continued suspension of brutality, I'll refrain from giving any details in the hope that we can continue our discussion in a civilised way.

"You will get no respect from me, other than that I will not hurt or kill you based on the fact that you are a human being."

Is the full quote. Not:

"You will get no respect from me."

Or:

"I will not hurt or kill you."

Do you have a problem with basic English? Or are you a typical Christian, willing to take things out of context and twist words to win an argument, at least in your own mind? Christians are all the same: diseased and deluded. Thank you for proving me right. Even when Christians claim to be different, they are all the same. You will recieve no more conversation from me, sir. Take your half-assed, lame apolgetics elsewhere. You're not fooling anyone.

Like Trancelation, I too will not put up with the bullshit of another christian.

I am one who has been wounded by the hypocritical lies of christianity and the lies of the "Wholey Babble". Christianity is the worst thing that ever happened to me. I've been to at least 15 different churches in my life, and not every single one of them were the same denomination. They may be slightly different, however in the end they are all just as fucked up as the other churches are down the street.

I don't care if it is Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of God, Apostolic, or Non-Denominational. They are all full of shit, and they all promote oppression. The only real differences in the denominations is they can't seem to agree on the same things, and God can't seem to make the message clear to none of them.

Unlike other people who post on this site (Who I have a lot of respect for) such as WM, Jim Arvo, Atheistoothfairy, and Boomslang, I unfortunately do not have good debating skills like these folks do. I am a very simple minded person who has a very basic understanding of things. I look at things from a very simple view I guess you could say.

As immature as my rants may seem at times, I do not mind insulting christians who want to start cramming their bullshit down my throat.

I have no respect for christians or other religious people who insist on violating the privacy of others by sticking their noses in other people's lives and using the threats of hell and damnation by telling others how to live their lives. How people choose to live their personal and private lives is nobody else's goddamn business as long as they are not hurting someone else or doing something illegal.

People have a right to be left alone without fear of being harassed by a bunch of religious fanatical christian assholes who seem to have nothing else better to do with their time than go around poking their noses in the private affairs of others, and government issues.

phant wrote:"...Unlike other people who post on this site (Who I have a lot of respect for) such as [the names you'd expect; - e_s], I unfortunately do not have good debating skills like these folks do..."

Oh, I wouldn't say that; in the same post, farther down, we find:

"...People have a right to be left alone without fear of being harassed by a bunch of religious fanatical christian assholes who seem to have nothing else better to do with their time than go around poking their noses in the private affairs of others, and government issues."

Yep. That's the message alright. And I'd say you pretty much nailed it.

I assume the last few posts refer to Christians in general, and not to my posts on this thread, because:

Firstly, I didn't "cram ... bullshit down [anyone's] throat" - in fact if you look above you will see that I criticised Christians who do that as rude, insensitive, crass and insulting.

Secondly, it should therefore go without saying that I didn't use "threats of hell and damnation by telling others how to live their lives".

I enjoy reading some of the discussions on here, and was simply trying to discuss a couple of points in a matter of fact way. If the site posting guidelines state "all people are welcome to join the discussions and post their ideas, thoughts, or even well thought out arguments", then provided I adhere to the posting guidelines - which I believe I do - then this does not constitute "violating the privacy of others by sticking their noses in other people's lives". Rest assured, if the posting guidelines are changed to "Non-atheists keep away", I will happily comply.

Finally, as for "take a christian's argument or debate and rip it to shreds", not a single point in my last post to Trancelation has been answered.

Bill F said "...not a single point in my last post to Trancelation has been answered."

I didn't see anything that really needed answering, but here it goes: Yes, there are obviously religious scientists, although they are in the minority. Yes, Newton was a Christian. In fact, he spent enormous energy in trying to decipher messages in the Bible believing that it held great prophecies. (By the way, he was also an alchemist.) Yes, obviously some Christians and Christian organizations have performed valuable services. Was there anything else that I missed?